Visa Facilitation: The Netherlands

Transcription

Visa Facilitation in the Netherlands
The following analysis focuses on the entry visa requirements for temporary visitors
to the Netherlands and the opportunities of visa facilitation. The report was prepared
by the Secretariat upon request of the Netherlands Board of Tourism and
Conventions (NBTC).
Madrid, June 2014
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) - A Specialized Agency of the United Nations
Capitán Haya 42, 28020 Madrid, Spain. Tel.: (34) 91 567 81 00 / Fax: (34) 91 571 37 33 – [email protected] / unwto.org
Acknowledgements
For the preparation of this report, valuable input was received from a number of
stakeholders. We wish to especially thank Marieke Politiek, Senior Market
Researcher, Netherlands Board of Tourism and Conventions, Eddie Yang, Director
China, Netherlands Board of Tourism and Conventions, Benno Leeser, President,
Gassan Diamonds, Kees Noomen, General Director, Coster Diamonds, Ineke van
der Genugten, Director Tourist Development and Partners, KLM and Anne - Marie
Soerensen, DG Home Affairs, Unit C2-Visa, European Commission who provided
valuable comments and made their time available for in - depth interviews.
The report was prepared under the supervision of Dr. Dirk Glaesser, Director of
Sustainable Development of Tourism Programme, UNWTO with contributions from
Birka Valentin, Gordon Clark, Lorna Hartantyo, John Kester, Gaith Saqqa and
Meagan Greenberg.
1
Table of Contents
1. Background and structure........................................................................................................... 3
2. The framework of the Netherlands ............................................................................................ 4
2.1. Current visa situation in the Schengen Area ............................................................................ 4
2.2. Schengen visa data ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.3. Dutch visa data............................................................................................................................ 10
2.4. Schengen visa reciprocity .......................................................................................................... 15
Box 1: Focus China and the Russian Federation .......................................................................... 16
3. Market trends ............................................................................................................................... 17
3.1. Visa regulations and travel behavior of the Chinese and Russian market ........................ 21
4. The economic impact of visa facilitation ............................................................................... 23
Box 2: The economic powerhouse of the 21st century .................................................................. 24
4.1. International tourism receipts in detail ..................................................................................... 25
Box 3: The impact of the diamond ................................................................................................... 29
4.2. Economic impacts in the European Union .............................................................................. 30
4.3. Economic impacts in the Netherlands ..................................................................................... 31
5. Visa application process ............................................................................................................ 33
5.1. Information search ...................................................................................................................... 33
Box 4: Visa requirement information and search engines............................................................ 33
5.2. Application.................................................................................................................................... 35
Box 5: The journey before the journey ............................................................................................ 35
5.3. Processing time ........................................................................................................................... 37
6. Facilitation opportunities ........................................................................................................... 38
2
1. Background and structure
This report has been prepared by UNWTO in response to a request from the
Netherlands Board for Tourism and Conventions (NBTC). It complements the
recently released study by the European Commission on ‘the economic impact of
short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and on the overall economies of EU
Member States being part of the Schengen Area’.1 While the European Commission
study focuses on forecasts of different markets, this analysis compares data
specifically related to source markets entering the Schengen Area2, with a particular
focus on the Netherlands. In addition, the report looks at the current visa
requirements for tourists (temporary visitors) to the Netherlands and identifies areas
and measures for further facilitation, taking into account the current framework of the
Schengen Area.
For the preparation of this report, various background interviews with stakeholders
and consultations with Dutch tourism professionals were conducted during the period
of March to June 2013.
The report is structured as follows:






Section ① provides an overview of current activities by countries around the world
related to visa facilitation.
Section ② gives a summary of the Schengen Area agreement and its visa
policies, focusing on the short stay visa (C visa). The chapter continues with
quantitative figures for the Schengen C visa and an analysis of the current
conditions for the Netherlands within the Schengen context.
Section ③ provides an overview of the main international tourism markets that
visit the Schengen Area and specifically the Netherlands.
Section ④ looks at economic impacts of travel flows on the Schengen Area as
well as the Netherlands.
Section ⑤ outlines observations made during the research process in regard to
current visa application procedures.
Section ⑥ draws conclusions and presents recommended measures for visa
facilitation.
1
European Commission (2013), Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism
industry and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area; available at:
ttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=8152.
2
In all cases, preferably Schengen data was used for the analysis. When not available, data for the European
Union Member States was used instead.
3
The issue of visa facilitation has become one of the priority areas for the travel and
tourism sector worldwide. A number of regional and national improvement initiatives
have been enacted recently, further easing access for international travellers.
However, lengthy and cumbersome visa procedures still serve as impediments for
travellers and act as significant deterrents for international tourism.3 UNWTO
research shows that in 2013, on average 64% of the world population is required to
obtain a visa prior to an international departure. Though this figure reflects an
improvement from the 77% of travellers requiring visas for international travel in
2008, many unexploited opportunities remain to facilitate travel between countries.
Research prepared by UNWTO found that the implementation of visa facilitation
measures by the G20 economies could generate as much as 5.1 million additional
jobs and trigger 200 million USD additional exports from international tourism from
2013 - 2015.4
2. The framework of the Netherlands
2.1. Current visa situation in the Schengen Area
Background
The Schengen Agreement, first signed by France, Germany and the Benelux
countries in 1985, led to the gradual abolition of inside border controls and a common
visa policy between countries under the agreement.5 Today, the Schengen Area
3
Visa facilitation has already been on the agenda of the UN in 1963, when the first UN conference on
International Travel and Tourism was held in Rome. The recommendation defined during this conference was:
‘all governments should extend to the maximum number of countries the practice of abolishing, through bilateral
agreements or by unilateral decisions, the requirements of entry visa for temporary visitors’. States represented
at the conference were: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria,
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia,
Congo (Leopold-Ville), Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Holy See, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran,
Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali,
Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru,
Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia,
Republic of South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela, Yugoslavia. UN
Specialized Agencies: FAO, UNESCO, ICAO, WHO, IMCO.
4
World Tourism Organization and World Travel & Tourism Council (2012), The Impact of Visa Facilitation on Job
Creation in the G20 Economies, UNWTO and WTTC, Madrid and London.
5
The agreement´s objective was, and remains, to facilitate the free movement of people and goods within the
treaty area as well as harmonizing external border control procedures. The actual implementation of the
Schengen Agreement was realized in 1995 and the Schengen cooperation was integrated into the legal
framework of the EU on 1 May 1999 through the development of the Amsterdam Treaty.
4
consists of 26 European states and functions for international travellers as one single
area.6
Country
Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Portugal, Spain
Italy
Austria
Greece
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden
Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta,
Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia
Switzerland
Liechtenstein
Border checks abolished
26 March 1995
26 March 1997
1 December 1997
26 March 2000
25 March 2001
21 December 2007
12 December 2008 (land borders), 29 March
2009 (air frontiers)
19 December 2011
Source: Federal Foreign Office of Germany
The Schengen C visa for tourism purposes
Except for citizens of the Schengen Member States as well as citizens from the 46
currently exempted countries around the world, travellers need to obtain the uniform
short stay visa (C visa) when travelling for tourism purposes to one or more countries
of the Treaty Area.7 This entry visa in turn functions for all 26 Schengen Member
States, facilitating travels throughout Europe for tourism purposes. Citizens of the 46
currently exempted countries represent close to17% of the world population and
generated around 39% of all international tourist arrivals in 2011 globally. 8
Valid for a maximum of 90 days in a 180-day period, the C visa can be granted for
the purpose of one single entry or multiple entries; however, not all Member States
issue a multiple C visa. The single entry visa only allows for an uninterrupted stay of
up to 90 days within a 180-day range. A multiple entry visa allows the holder several
entries (as many times as the multiple entry visa defines) into the Treaty Area within
this timeframe.9,10
6
More detailed information on membership and the agreement can be found under:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigratio
n/l33020_en.htm
7
Schengen Aquis are not considered as full Schengen Member States. The 46 exempted countries are
(excluding Schengen Member States): Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas,
Barbados, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia,
Cyprus, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong SAR, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Macao SAR,
Macedonia, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay,
Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, United
Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay and Venezuela.
8
Currently, the European Commission is processing propositions to allow nationals from 16 small island nations
in the Caribbean and Pacific regions, the United Arab Emirates, Peru and Colombia to come to the Schengen
area without a visa - be it for business, touristic or family visit purposes. See: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_STATEMENT-14-19_en.htm.
9
See also: http://www.theschengenoffice.com/explained/schengen_visa.html.
5
Schengen Area visa policies, 2013
The fee for requesting a Schengen C visa is 60 euros for adults and 35 euros for
children (6 – 12 years old) whereas children below 6 years of age can obtain the visa
without charge.11 In addition, the European Commission has reduced the fee to 35
euros for nine non-EU source markets as an initial measure of visa facilitation.12
Applicants are required in all cases to provide the issuing consulate with
documentation including: completed and signed application form, passport,
photographs, residence permit and proof of payment of application fee. Depending
on the source market of the traveller, additional supporting documents are sometimes
required.13
Tourists must apply for their C visa at the country mission of the primary destination
within the Schengen area, or where the longest stay will occur. In cases where this is
difficult to determine (e.g. round trips, cruises), the application takes place at the
10
For the purpose of this report, the analysis presented in the report focuses solely on the Schengen C visa due
to the lower importance the other visas have in regard to tourism.
11
According to information from EC the fee is designed to recover what that the administrative process is costing
and was based on information provided by the French administration.
12
The European Commission has concluded visa facilitation agreements with the following nine non-EU
countries: Albania (2008), Bosnia and Herzegovina (2008), TFYR of Macedonia (2008), Georgia (2011), Republic
of Moldova (2008), Montenegro (2008), Serbia (2008), the Russian Federation (2007), Ukraine (2008). See also:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-policy/index_en.htm.
13
As defined by the European Commission. As an example, the EC decided on the required supporting
documents to be submitted by applicants for shorts stay visas for China, travelling for tourism purposes, such as
e.g. proof of accommodation, flight reservation and other documents. See also: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/homeaffairs/e-library/docs/pdf/1_en_act_part1_v4_en.pdf#zoom=100.
6
country mission of the first point of entry.14 For individual travellers, a personal
appearance for the application is compulsory. For trips organized through tour
operators there are exceptions, depending on the source country (e.g. China - see
chapter 3.1.) and other criteria (such as the operator).
At the time of the preparation of this report, the European Commission is currently
reviewing the Schengen visa system, discussing, among other facilitation measures,
the possible exemption for short stay Schengen visas for citizens from Moldova,
Peru, Colombia and the United Arab Emirates. In addition, to inform its visa
facilitation initiatives, the European Commission has recently published a study on
the economic impact of the Schengen short stay visa. 15
2.2. Schengen visa data
As previously noted, UNWTO research shows that in 2013 around 64% of the world´s
population needed to obtain a traditional visa before embarking on an international
journey. While this percentage remains relatively high, it is important to note that
significant improvements in facilitating international travel have taken place since
2008, when 77% of the world´s population was required to obtain a visa. This recent
global trend toward removing the barriers to travel presented by visa requirements
has not been enacted in the Schengen area however, where 77% of the world’s
population is still obliged to obtain a traditional visa before travelling.16
Percentage of world population required to
obtain traditional visa
77%
77%
77%
77%
74%
64%
2008
2010
2013
Schengen
World
14
In case no destination can be determined as main destination, the first point of entry is responsible for the visa
application. See also: http://europa.eu/youreurope/advice/docs/faq_en.pdf.
15
industry and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area; available at:
ttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=8152.
16
While many countries around the world have facilitated travel through eVisa systems, the Schengen Area has
not implemented an eVisa system so far.
7
Translating these results into the openness index, a measure devised by UNWTO to
assess the extent to which a destination is facilitating tourism, the Netherlands (as
did all Schengen Member States) obtained an openness score of 23 in 2013.17 This
score places the Netherlands as less open than the majority of other advanced
economies which scored an average of 26. In addition, emerging economies are
facilitating tourism to a greater extent with respect to openness, averaging 23 on the
openness index.
Sub-regions of destinations by percentage of world population affected by visa policies, 2013
Openness
World
Schengen Area
a
The Netherlands
c
Advanced Economies
c
Emerging Economies
30
23
23
26
31
a
No
Visa
b
Visa Visa on arrival eVisa
required
% of world population affected by visa policies
18%
15%
3%
64%
23%
0%
0%
77%
23%
0%
0%
77%
24%
1%
3%
72%
17%
19%
3%
62%
By UNWTO regions:
Africa
29
9%
28%
1%
62%
North Africa
14
14%
1%
0%
85%
West Africa
23
7%
23%
0%
70%
Central Africa
5
2%
0%
7%
91%
East Africa
50
8%
60%
0%
32%
Southern Africa
25
25%
0%
0%
75%
Americas
36
32%
5%
1%
62%
North America
14
11%
0%
6%
83%
Caribbean
41
39%
2%
1%
58%
Central America
36
31%
8%
0%
62%
South America
36
29%
9%
0%
62%
Asia and the Pacific
37
20%
20%
6%
54%
North-East Asia
29
26%
4%
1%
69%
South-East Asia
50
25%
30%
6%
38%
Oceania
41
25%
18%
6%
51%
South Asia
26
4%
23%
11%
62%
Europe
24
21%
3%
2%
74%
Northern Europe
23
23%
0%
0%
77%
Western Europe
23
23%
0%
0%
77%
Central/Eastern Europe
24
16%
8%
5%
71%
Southern/Mediterranean
Europe
25
25%
0%
1%
74%
d
- of which EU-28
22
22%
0%
0%
77%
Middle East
19
1%
20%
7%
72%
Source:
compiled
by
UNWTO
based
on
information
of
national
official
institutions.
a
Scores range from 100 to 0; the higher the score, the better. Openness indicates to what extent a destination
is facilitating tourism. It is calculated by summing the percentage of the world population exempt from obtaining
a visa with the percentages of visa on arrival weighted by 0.7 and eVisa by 0.5. For the (sub)regional totals, the
percentages of the four different visa categories and the resulting openness score represent the averages of
17
On a scale from 1 to 100, with 100 being the most open country.
8
economies in that group (where destination economies are weighted by natural logarithm of the population size
(i.e. In ((1,000 population)) in order to take into account differences in destination size).
b
Visa required means that a visa has to be obtained prior to departure and is not an electronic visa (eVisa).
c
Advanced economies and emerging economies classifications are based on the International Monetary Fund
(IMF); see the Statistical Annex of the IMF’s World Economic Outlook of April 2012, p. 177, at
www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01.
d
The EU-28 countries are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Ireland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Openness Index 2013
Note: The higher the score, the better. Openness indicates to what extent a destination is facilitating tourism. It is
calculated by summing the percentage of the world´s population exempt from obtaining a visa, with the percentages
of no visa weighted by 1, visa on arrival weighted by 0.7, eVisa by 0.5 and visa required weighted by 0.
Source: compiled by UNWTO based on information of national official institutions.
Disclaimer: The maps developed by UNWTO are for reference only and do not imply any judgement on the legal
status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.
9
2.3. Dutch visa data
In looking at the number of applications for uniform short stay or C visas processed
by the Netherlands, (i.e. tourists either travelling to the Netherlands as their main
destination or their first port of entry), there has been a significant increase in recent
years. Between 2010 and 2012, they number of applications grew 7% annually,
reaching almost half a million applications in the Netherlands in 2012, or around 3%18
of all Schengen applications that respective year.19
In the same timeframe, the Schengen Area had an even higher average annual
growth rate of 14%, reaching more than 14 million visa applications in 2012, also
indicating increasing numbers of international travellers coming to the Treaty
Area.20,21
Country
Schengen
Area
The
Netherlands
France
Year
C visa
applications
2010
11,812,352
2012
15,116,973
2010
386,759
2012
440,056
2010
1,965,777
2012
2,321,534
Increase in C
visa applications
(%)
28%
14%
18%
Granted C
visa
(including MEV)
Approval
rate (%)
11,018,936
93%
14,250,595
94%
355,528
92%
410,273
93%
1,777,899
90%
2,104,760
91%
Increase
of granted
C visa (%)
29%
15%
18%
To better understand the opportunities and trends, visa application data is compared
with France, a destination – similar to the Netherlands – attracting Chinese and
Russian tourists. For Chinese travellers, France ranked number three on the list of
18
3,2% in 2009 and 2010.
In this chapter: data is mainly provided by the European Commission, available online at:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-policy/index_en.htm; for the
years 2010 and 2011, information comes from: European Commission (2009): Overview Schengen Visa Statistics
2009 to 2011; available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/visapolicy/docs/overview_of_schengen_visa_statistics_2012_final_en.pdf; as well as the NBTC.
20
Application figures for Schengen in 2010: 11,812,352; 2011: 13,483,497; 2012: 15,116,973.
21
The leading Member States in terms of received visa applications in 2012 were: France (2.3 million), Germany
(1.8 million), Spain and Italy (1.8 and 1.7 million). France could capture 15% of all applications and Germany
12%. Although looking at a comparatively lower base than these leading Member States, the two Member States
with the highest annual growth rate of received applications were Iceland (46%) and Spain (30%).
19
10
top five European travel destinations in 2009, following Germany and Italy in the
ranking.22
Applications and visas granted in France and the Netherlands
15,117
14,251
11,812
11,019
Schengen
France
The
Netherlands
2,322
1,966
440
387
2,105
1,637
Applications 2010 Applications 2012
355
410
Visas granted
2010
Visas granted
2012
Besides receiving the most visa applications of any country within the Schengen Area
in 2012, France also experienced a strong average annual growth rate of 9%
between 2010 and 2012. This growth closely corresponds with France´s annual
increase in the number of C visas granted over the same time period.
2010-2012 Dutch C visa applications
Applications
410,273
396,712
355,011
440,056
428,206
386,759
2010
2011
2012
Visas
Visasgranted
Issued
While France is the Schengen Member State that granted the highest number of
visas with 2.1 million approved C visa applications; the country with the highest
approval rate was Lithuania with 99% of all visa applications granted (though from a
significantly smaller number of applications). In 2012 the approval rate in France was
22
The United Kingdom and Switzerland follow France in the ranking while Holland places 8th position on the list
of most popular European destinations (excluding the Russian Federation) among Chinese travellers in 2009.
Source: IPK, 2010. Chinese Outbound Travel 2009, IPK International.
11
91%, the Netherlands 93%. On average, across all Member States of the Schengen
Area the approval rate was 90%.23,24
With respect to rejection rates of visa applications, the Schengen Area and the
Netherlands both experienced a decline in the number of rejections, with rates of 8.9% (the Netherlands) and -15% (Schengen) between 2010 and 2012. The Member
State with the lowest rejection rate in 2012 was Lithuania with 0.9%, followed by
Greece with 1.1% and Finland with 1.3%. However, it should also be kept in mind
that a decline in rejections is not necessarily indicative of faster and easier
application processes, as not all characteristics of applications are the same between
countries.25,26
Emerging Markets
In 2012, the largest number of C visa applications to the Schengen Area were
coming from the Russian Federation (6.1 million), Ukraine (1.3 million), China (1.2
million), Belarus (700,000), Turkey (700,000), and India (500,000). As well, in all
countries, the number of applications increased from the 2011 level.
States with the most visa applications to the Schengen Area
(000s)
6069
5266
2011
2012
11431314
Russian
Federation
Ukraine
10801243
China
584 698
624 669
500 506
Belarus
Turkey
India
Especially significant are the Chinese and Russian C visa application growth rates
because of the potential of these source markets. Schengen Area visa applications
from China increased by 40.4% per year between 2009 and 2011 and Russian
applications grew by 29% per year in the same period, showing a significant increase
23
All granted Schengen C visas in 2010: 11,018,936; 2011: 12,368,750; 2012: 14,250,595.
Total C visa applications in Schengen in 2012: 15.116.973.
25
The Netherlands: 8,2% in 2010, 7,3% in 2011, and 6,8% denied visas of total amount of visa applications in NL.
26
th
2011 NL: ranked 18 on scale of countries with smallest refusal rates.
24
12
in demand in each country. As presented in chapter 3 (Market trends), outbound data
of these source markets further support this finding. China´s average annual growth
in outbound travel indicates a 29.9% increase between 2009 and 2011. This is even
slightly higher than Brazil’s outbound market growth (28.2%) over the same time
period. Notably, Brazil is projected to be one of the strongest outbound markets in the
world in the future (see box 3). The Russian Federation, as a more experienced
outbound market, had an annual average growth rate of 18.2% between 2009 and
2011, which is lower than the increase in annual average growth rate for visa
applications in the Schengen Area.
Chinese travellers represented 8.2%
of all C visa applications with a total
of 1.2 million applications.27 In 2010,
the share was only 6.6%. Out of all
Chinese visa applications, 3.4%
Total Applications in were handled by the Netherlands.
Schengen C visa applications
from Chinese travellers in 2012
41,996
Schengen (excl. NL) 28,29
The Chinese arrival data (see also
chapter 3) to the Netherlands from
2011 indicates that only 26% of the
arrivals from China applied for a
Schengen C visa with the authorities
30
of the Netherlands. This figure closely reflects the travel behavior of Chinese
travellers, who tend to visit the Netherlands primarily on a multiple-destination tour
through Europe. While the average approval rate for C visa applications from China
was 95.4% in the Schengen Area, the approval rate for Chinese C visa applications
managed by the Netherlands was slightly higher with 96.5%.
1,200,51
1
The Netherlands - Uniform short stay (C visa) application 2012
Country
Applications filed
Visas granted
Success rate NL
Success rate Schengen
Russian Federation
57,087
56,561
99%
97,8%
China
41,996
40,536
96,5%
95,4%
27
Total Amount of C Schengen Visa applied for in the Schengen Area in 2012: 15,116,973.
Chinese applications in Schengen in 2010: 778,501; total Schengen applications in 2010: 11,812,352.
29
Source: COM Schengen Figure Sheet and EC Overview of Schengen Figures 2009 to 2012.
30
In 2011, 155,700 visitors came from China to the Netherlands.
28
13
In 2012, 40.1% of all Schengen C visa applications (6 million) were received from the
Russian Federation. In 2010, the share was 35.7%.31 In 2012, the Netherlands
received 57,087 applications in total, but captured only 1% of all Russian applications
to enter the Schengen Area. The Schengen Member State receiving the most
Russian applications in 2012 was Finland, with a total of 1.5 million Russian C visa
applications and an approval rate of 99.5%.32 The 2011 arrival data (as presented in
chapter 3) indicates that 41% of all Russian arrivals to the Netherlands applied for a
Schengen C visa with Dutch authorities.33
By comparison, 47.5% of all
Russian arrivals to Finland applied
for a Schengen C visa with Finish
57,087
authorities. The fast processing time
of visa applications by the Finish
Total Applications
authorities (about 2 days) meets the
Schengen (excl. NL)
preference
for
short
notice
bookings, which are characteristic
6,011,914
for the Russian market (70% of
Russian travellers book their trips
one week to one month in
advance34) and reflects aboveaverage growth. Similar growth in Russian visa applications was also observed when
Israel, Brazil and Turkey facilitated entry requirements for Russians.
Schengen C visa application from
Russian travellers in 2012
Arrivals from citizens of the Russian Federation in:
Year
Brazil
Israel
Turkey
2009
10,038
231,366
2,694,733
2010
15,863
318,572
3,107,043
2011
22,355
353,419
3,468,214
2012
25,141
380,737
unknown
31
Total Schengen applications from the Russian Federation in 2010: 4222,551.
Granted C Visas from Finnish authorities (filed from Russian citizens) in 2012: 131,864.
33
In 2011, 139,000 Russian visitors came to the Netherlands.
34
European Tour Operators Association (2010), Europe: Open for Business? Reopening the debate on visa
policy; available at: www.etoa.org.
32
14
2.4. Schengen visa reciprocity
As of 2013, 54% of all visa policies around the world are reciprocal, meaning they are
consistent for citizens of each of the two countries (of which 16% were visa free).35
While all visa policies within the Schengen Area are reciprocally free (100% open
reciprocity between Member States), citizens from an additional 46 countries are
currently exempted from needing to obtain a visa before entering the Treaty Area.
Requirements for citizens of Schengen Member States travelling abroad vary
depending on their citizenship and the destination. Currently, citizens of the
Schengen Area are required to obtain a visa before entering 48 countries 36 around
the world and they are not required to obtain a visa for 120 countries. Countries
which are exempt from requiring visas when entering the Schengen Area generally
do not require visas from Schengen travellers in return.37
There is some variation however, and travellers from Southern Schengen Member
States are more often required to hold visas when travelling abroad relative to those
from northern Schengen countries. Estonian nationals and citizens of the Czech
Republic are most frequently required to hold visas when entering foreign countries
(visas are required for both nationalities when entering 58 countries around the
world). Nationals of the Czech Republic are also exempted from visas the least when
entering other destinations (visas are not required in only 114 destinations). This
contrasts Finland where Finnish nationals are the least frequently required to hold
visas when entering foreign countries (visas are required when entering just 41
countries) and they are exempt from visa requirements the most when entering
foreign countries (visas are not required when entering 126 countries).
The Netherlands
Dutch citizens are far less frequently required to obtain visas than inbound travellers
are when entering the Netherlands for tourism purposes. In 2013, 122 destinations
around the globe38 did not require Dutch citizens to obtain visas before travelling.
This number remains unchanged since 2008; however, the number of destinations
requiring a traditional visa from Dutch citizens decreased from 68 countries in 2008 to
43 countries in 2013, indicating that destinations around the world increasingly offer
35
All in all, 19,914 reciprocal policies were analyzed.
From 216 destinations analyzed; in 5.6 cases, eVisa can be applied for on average; in 40.8 cases, VoA can be
applied for on average.
37
Countries that require Member States to hold visas, but are not required holding visas when entering the
Schengen Area are Australia and the USA (requiring eVisas) as well as Seychelles (requiring visa on arrival).
38
From 216 destinations analyzed.
36
15
Dutch citizens the options of visa on arrival or eVisa.39 This trend indicates the
positive perceptions among other countries toward Dutch travellers around the world
and highlight the increasing mobility Dutch citizens enjoy when travelling
internationally.
Box 1: Focus China and the Russian Federation
In recent years, China has maintained its visa policy requiring nearly all foreign citizens to
obtain a visa prior to entering the country. From 2008 to 2012, China has only changed a few
entry requirements for neighboring countries and has shown no reciprocal visa free policy
changes. However, in 2013, a bilateral agreement on mutual visa free travel was signed with
the Seychelles, indicating China´s growing interest in visa facilitation measurements.
In contrast, the Russian Federation has embraced eliminating visa requirements with
numerous countries for a number of years. Before 2010, the country required visas from all
travellers except for citizens from neighboring countries. Between 2010 and 2012, the
Russian Federation initiated facilitation measures allowing visa free travel for citizens of
(from South America) Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru and Venezuela; (from Asia)
Hong Kong and Thailand; (from Europe) Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Israel,
Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey.
Of these countries, Argentina Brazil, Peru, Hong Kong, Thailand, Israel, Montenegro and
Serbia did not require visas of Russian citizens in 2010 or 2012; Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela,
Bosnia & Herzegovina and Turkey made a reciprocal change in exempting Russian citizens
from requiring documentation. In the case of Colombia, the Russian Federation facilitated
entry requirements even though Colombia tightened their requirements for Russian citizens
in 2012 from `no visa´ to `visa required´.
Of the countries for which the Russian Federation removed visa requirements between 2010
and 2012, Argentina, Brazil, Hong Kong, Israel and Serbia and Thailand had already lifted
visa requirements for Russian citizens between 2008 and 2010.
No visa policy changes have occurred between the Russian Federation or China and any
Schengen Member States.
39
Example visa on arrival: In 2013, Dutch citizens could obtain a visa on arrival in 41 countries. In 2008, this
number was much lower with 25 countries offering visa on arrival to Dutch citizens.
16
3. Market trends
UNWTO´s research shows that international tourist arrivals (overnight visitors) grew
by 5% in 2013, reaching a record nearly 1.1 billion arrivals. Despite global economic
challenges, international tourism results were well above expectations, with an
additional 52 million international tourists travelling the world in 2013.
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013*
Annual arrival growth rates (%)
International
Advanced
Tourism Arrivals
Economies
6.5
6.5
4.9
4.7
4.1
3.9
5.1
5.3
Annual growth in
outbound markets (%)
Emerging
Economies
8.5
4.9
4.0
4.9
China
20.4
22.4
18.4
-
Russia
14.7
11.1
9.3
-
Note: China Outbound: excluding Hong Kong and Macao
* 2013 based on preliminary data
While Europe remains the world’s largest source region, generating just over half of
all international tourism arrivals worldwide, many emerging economies (especially in
Asia and the Pacific) have shown fast growth in recent years. 40 Emerging economies
marked higher annual average growth rates in recent years in comparison to the
advanced economies (see table above), which is a trend that is expected to continue.
Although the Netherlands depends, aside from EU travellers, largely on the US
market, the BRIC countries (Brazil, the Russian Federation, India and China) are
increasingly important. Currently, China still generates the most visitors compared to
the other three BRIC nations; however, the greatest average growth rate per year
between 2007 and 2011 was generated by Brazil with 17.6% (in comparison: India
15.5%, the Russian Federation 13.4%, Australia 7.8% and China 6.4%).41 Between
2010 and 2011, China, followed by Brazil, Russia and Australia, had the greatest
average growth rates.
42
Top Arrivals to the Netherlands (from non-Schengen countries)
2004
2008
2011
USA
USA
USA
Japan
Canada
China
Canada
Japan
Russian Federation
China
China
Canada
Australia
Russian Federation
Australia
Russian Federation
Australia
Japan
Israel
Israel
Israel
Turkey
India
India
Indonesia
Turkey
Turkey
40
Asia and the Pacific: greatest annual growth rate between 2006 and 2012 with 6,4%.
Source: NBTC 2012 Market Figures
42
Source: UNWTO Arrival Data
41
17
For the Netherlands, with 20% of its 11.3 million43 international arrivals in 2011
coming from outside of Europe, these markets are clearly of increasing importance.
Total arrivals to the Netherlands (in millions)
2
1
Arrivals from outside
Europe
9
European arrivals
5
1995
2011
Focus China
Chinese outbound tourism has increased almost eight-fold between 2000 and 2012,
surging from 11 million international trips at the beginning of the decade to over 83
million in 2012. From these 83 million trips, an estimated 49% were not required to
obtain a visa before travelling internationally, whereas 51% of Chinese travellers
were required to do so It is expected that the Chinese market will reach the 100
million mark for international trips (including travel to Hong Kong, China) and Macao,
China) well before 2020. 44, 45
43
UNWTO (2012), Yearbook, Arrivals of non-resident tourists in all types of accommodation establishments, by
country of residence, UNWTO, Madrid.
44
UNWTO (2013), The Chinese Outbound Travel Market: Outbound Travel Trends, 2012 update, UNWTO,
Madrid.
45
Of the 51% requiring a visa, 23% were visas on arrival; 4% were eVisas.
18
Outbound Travel from China, 1995 - 2011
Source: Compiled by UNWTO, based on CNTA data
In 2011, Europe was the second most
popular
outbound
destination
for
Chinese travellers, capturing 4.4% of all
outbound trips (leisure and business).
Countries within Europe most popular for
Chinese travellers in 2011 were France,
the Russian Federation, Germany,
Switzerland and Austria.
Source: CBS, 2012
In 2011, 157,000 Chinese citizens visited the Netherlands (about 4 million ventured
to Europe the same year), spending a total of 261,000 nights in the country. In 2012,
198,000 Chinese visitors came to the Netherlands.46, 47
Of all non-Schengen source markets, the Chinese market was the third biggest
market in 2011 (behind UK and the US) in terms of visitor arrivals to the
Netherlands.48 Between 2006 and 2011, the average annual growth rate for this
market was 12.6%. Of a total of 11.3 million visitors in the Netherlands in 2011, 1.4%
were Chinese tourists. By comparison, 1.1% of all visitors came from China in 2010.
46
UNWTO (2013), The Chinese Outbound Travel Market: Arrivals of non - resident tourists in hotels and similar
establishments, 2012 update, UNWTO, Madrid.
47
CBS Statistics Netherlands
48
UK: 1.433.400 arrivals, United States: 946,000 arrivals, China: 155,700 arrivals.
19
About 45% of the Chinese visitors to the Netherlands came for holiday purposes.49
According to the NBTC forecast, the number of Chinese guests will increase to
400,000 in 2020.
Focus: The Russian Federation
The Russian Federation also
presents one of the fastest growing
outbound
markets
worldwide,
which is especially interesting for
the Netherlands due to its
geographic proximity. Russian
outbound tourism grew to over 47
million trips abroad in 2012. Of
these outbound trips, an estimated
51% did not need to obtain a visa
and 48% needed to obtain a visa.50
Source: CBS, 2012
For Russia, 87,000 arrivals were counted to the Netherlands in 2006. 51 In 2011, the
number grew to 146,000 arrivals, representing the fourth biggest source market from
outside the Schengen Area. From a total of 11.3 million tourists to the Netherlands in
2011, 1.2% were Russian tourists. In 2012, the number of arrivals from the Russian
Federation grew further to 162,000 arrivals, making up 1.4% of all arrivals to the
Netherlands.
Additionally, when looking at the ratio of international tourist arrivals and C visa
applications for both the Schengen Area and the Netherlands, the proportions are
similar with 3.8% for both the Netherlands (the Netherlands received 11.3 million
international tourism arrivals in 2011 and 428,206 C visa applications) and the
Schengen Area (the Treaty Area received 358 million international tourism arrivals
and 13.5 million C visa applications in 2011). This indicates that the Netherlands
attracts similar proportions of international tourists that are required to obtain a visa
as the Schengen Area does overall. In comparison, France received in 2011 81.5
million international tourist arrivals and 2.1 million C visa applications (2.6%),
whereas Spain received 56.1 million arrivals and 1.5 million applications (2.7%).
49
Netherlands Board of Tourism & Conventions (2009), Inbound Tourism research 2009, NBTC, Leidschendam.
Of the 48%, 23% were visas on arrival and 0.7% were eVisas.
51
World Tourism Organization and European Travel Commission (2009), The Russian Outbound Travel Market with special insight into the image of Europe as a destination, UNWTO and ETC, Madrid and Brussels.
50
20
3.1. Visa regulations and travel behavior of the Chinese and Russian market
Because of the important opportunities presented by these source markets previously
mentioned, a more specific analysis of the Russian and Chinese outbound markets is
warranted.
Booking Times
Half of Chinese travellers book their trip one week to one month before travelling,
while 47% book their journeys one to three months in advance.52 The Schengen Area
visa application process requires two to three weeks for processing (depending on
the Member State). In addition, numerous supporting documents from Chinese
citizens are required, which take time to process and obtain beforehand. Due to
these time consuming requirements, the Schengen visa procedure is rather
discouraging for this source market. Also, because flight and hotel confirmations
need to be included in the Schengen visa application, Chinese travellers are usually
obliged to book the main elements of their holidays before applying. This indicates
that under the current Schengen visa system, it is impossible for Chinese travellers to
book their trips on short notice.
The situation for the Russian market differs. Due to the fact that Russian travellers
are not required to provide as many supporting documents for the application, they
are able to plan their trips to the Schengen Area on shorter notice, which favours
their booking behavior. As stated before (chapter 2.2.), 70% of Russian travellers
book their trips one week to one month in advance. Due to closer geographic
distances to the Schengen Area (around 3 hours flight from both Moscow and St.
Petersburg to Amsterdam53), city weekend trips are attainable and increasingly
popular. Also, the Russian market is a more experienced source market than the
Chinese market. Russian travellers feel more comfortable booking trips on short
notice with little advance preparation. Encouraging travel among Russian citizens, in
2007, the Schengen area reduced the visa fee for Russian travellers to 35 euros, and
offered an additional fast track option in cases where the visa application and the
supporting documents have been submitted by the visa applicant within three days
before his/her envisaged date of departure (cost of visa then 70 euros).54
52
European Tour Operators Association (2010), Europe: Open for Business? Reopening the debate on visa
policy; available at: www.etoa.org.
53
Non - stop flights (these are more expensive flights; there are currently only cheap one - stop flights available).
54
European Commission Home Affairs; Information available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-wedo/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-policy/index_en.htm
21
Group Travel
Group travel to the Netherlands represents only a relatively small segment. In 2009,
only 7% of all international tourist arrivals to the Netherlands were arriving as an
organized group. Nevertheless, for Chinese tourists, group travel is the predominant
form of travel, accounting for 98% of the outbound trips in 2009 in China.55,56 The
Netherlands, when visited by the Chinese, is usually part of a tour that visits to six to
eight countries in around ten days.
For Russians on the other hand, group travel is much less common. Besides more
travel experience and the facilitation measures previously mentioned, the current
Schengen visa system imposes the same application requirements for individual
Russian travellers and group members, not favoring one over another. Certainly, for
first-time travellers and among middle-aged and older people, touring holidays
remain attractive. However, as Russians gain more experience travelling to the
Schengen Area and become increasingly used to Internet resources and the growing
number of online booking platforms, individual travel is becoming more and more
important.
55
Excluding travelling to Hong Kong, China and Macao, China. Source: UNWTO and European Travel
Commission (2013), The Chinese Outbound Travel Market,2012 Update, UNWTO and ETC, Madrid and
Brussels.
56
The tour operator will arrange all necessary documents, including the ADS visa application, and only random
interviews take place.
22
4. The economic impact of visa facilitation
Visitor expenditures on accommodation, food and beverage, local transport,
entertainment and shopping are important contributors to the economy of many
destinations, generating much needed employment and further opportunities for
development.
In 2012, international tourism expenditures reached a record of 839 billion euros, with
Europe taking the largest share.
Evolution of international tourism expenditure by top country spenders, 1995-2012
Source: World Tourism Organization, UNWTO.
Two remarkable changes in the top ten ranking by international tourism spenders in
2012 were noted: China leaped to first place, overtaking both long-time top spenders
Germany and the United States with a total spending of 79.4 billion euros, while the
Russian Federation´s spending climbed to fifth place, with a total spending of 33.3
billion euros. For the Schengen Area this means that two out of the five top country
spenders on international tourism in 2012 are still required to hold a C visa when
entering the Treaty Area. Encouraging the development of key tourism markets as a
compliment to the existing European markets through visa facilitation measures will
23
ensure that the potential economic benefits generated by international tourism are
realized.57, 58
Box 2: The economic powerhouse of the 21st century
In this first half of the 21st century, a major shift in global economic power is taking place as
emerging economies, sustained by rapid economic development and population size
become increasingly significant as compared to the already advanced economies. According
to the thesis first put forward by Jim O'Neill, economist at Goldman Sachs, Brazil, Russia,
India and China (BRICs) are expected to take their place among the most dominant
economies by 2050 given their economic potential.
China is expected to overtake the United States as the largest economy by Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) by around 2025. Of the other three BRIC economies, India is expected to
move up to third place (from 10th) in the ranking of the 15 largest economies by 2030, Brazil
to fourth (from eighth) and the Russian Federation to sixth (from ninth). Other large emerging
economies that will gain in significance are Mexico moving up to 10th place, Indonesia to
12th and Turkey to 14th. Consequently, the leading advanced economies United States,
Japan, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Spain and Australia, will all move
down one or more places. Per capita GDP is also growing fast in all the aforementioned
emerging economies, but is still lower than in advanced economies as they have
comparatively larger populations.
See further: BRICs and Beyond, Goldman Sachs Global Economics Group, 2007
15 largest economies in 2010 and by 2030
Population
Rank
million
2010
2030
2010 2030*
2
1 China
1,341
1,393
1
2 USA
310
362
10
3 India
1,225
1,523
8
4 Brazil
195
220
3
5 Japan
127
120
9
6 Russia
143
136
4
7 Germany
82
79
5
8 France
63
68
6
9 UK
62
69
14
10 Mexico
113
135
7
11 Italy
61
61
17
12 Indonesia
240
280
11
13 Canada
34
40
16
14 Turkey
73
87
15
15 Rep. of Korea
48
50
12
16 Spain
46
50
13
17 Australia
22
28
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
US$ billion, fixed 2010
share in world
2010 2030*
2010 2030*
5,633 31,731
9%
23%
14,614 22,920
24%
17%
1,594
7,972
3%
6%
1,990
5,862
3%
4%
4,773
5,852
8%
4%
1,689
4,730
3%
3%
3,640
4,441
6%
3%
2,866
4,205
5%
3%
2,582
3,644
4%
3%
1,050
2,991
2%
2%
2,295
2,868
4%
2%
692
2,446
1%
2%
1,583
2,346
3%
2%
704
2,169
1%
2%
1,014
2,112
2%
2%
1,542
1,966
3%
1%
1,191
1,802
2%
1%
average
% a year
2010-2030*
9.0%
2.3%
8.4%
5.5%
1.0%
5.3%
1.0%
1.9%
1.7%
5.4%
1.1%
6.5%
2.0%
5.8%
3.7%
1.2%
2.1%
GDP per capita
(US$, fixed 2010
2010 2030*
4,200 22,800
47,100 63,350
1,300
5,250
10,200 26,600
37,700 48,700
11,800 34,650
44,250 55,900
45,650 61,400
41,600 52,550
9,250 22,100
37,900 47,150
2,900
8,750
46,550 58,850
9,700 25,050
21,050 41,950
33,450 39,300
53,500 64,900
Source: compiled by UNWTO based on Goldman Sachs Global Economy, EM Equity in Two Decades: A Changing Landscape , Global Economics Paper No: 204, Timothy Moe, Caesar Maasry and Richard Tang, September 8, 2010
57
Spending from Germany in 2012: US$ 84 billion; United States: US$ 83 billion.
Between 2010 and 2011, China recorded the highest increase with 32% or an additional US$ 18 billion spent
on international tourism. Between 2011 and 2012, this number increased with an annual growth rate of 37%.
58
24
4.1. International tourism receipts in detail
As the world´s most popular tourism destination, Europe took a market share of 34%
of the global annual tourism receipts in 2012, with some 264 million euros in total.
The top seven spenders in Europe and the Netherlands in 2011were: United States,
Russia, Australia, Canada, China, Brazil and Japan (by rank).
2011 Dutch tourism revenue generated by (Euro million):
623
Tourism revenue
generated
126
USA
Russian
Federation
95
91
85
Australia
Canada
China
The United States is still, by a considerable margin, the largest source of international
tourism receipts for the Netherland of the non-Schengen or EU source markets. The
top five source markets (from outside the Schengen Area) for the Netherlands spent
in 2011: 623 million euros (US), 126 million euros (the Russian Federation), 95
million euros (Australia), 91 million euros (Canada), and 85 million euros (China),
with average annual growth rates for the 2009 to 2011 period of 11.7%, 26.4%,
24.4%, 15%, 8.2%, respectively.
Average annual growth rates of tourism receipts per source
market, 2009 - 2011 (%)
26,4
24,4
15,0
Average annual
growth rates
11,7
8,2
USA
Russian
Federation
Australia
Canada
China
25
Notably, two out of the five leading spenders for the Netherlands are required to
obtain visa when visiting. In addition, a stagnating or even decreasing importance
can be observed in many of the most important source market for the Netherlands.
The data show the markets responsible for the largest tourism receipts for the
Netherlands (which in 2011 represented an estimated 12.5% of the non-European
source markets) have shown an average annual proportional growth rate of -1.7%
between 2009 and 2011. In other words, whereas traditionally countries from the
European Union have been the greatest sources of international tourism receipts for
the Netherlands, growth is now coming from non-European source markets.
Focus: China and the Russian Federation
Chinese tourism expenditures abroad (Euro billion)
2012
79
2011
52
2010
41
2005
17
2000
140
0
10
20
30
40
In terms of spending power, Chinese are, in comparison to other top growing source
markets, an exception to the results in the Netherlands. Although the strongest
spending market on a global level in 2012, Chinese travellers spent much less per
trip in the Netherlands than their average spent per trip (974 euros). With 548 euros
per trip spent in the Netherlands in 2011, Chinese travellers rank significantly lower
(seventh place) as compared to the top spenders with 800 euros and more per trip. A
similar trend can be observed with regard to Chinese spending per day (338 euros) in
the Netherlands.
While travellers from some source markets spent more per trip than others (because
of the length of time that they stay in the Netherlands), others spent more because of
individual spending habits. For example, US and Chinese travellers stay in the
Netherlands on average for 1.68 nights and 1.62 nights respectively. For the Chinese
visitors in particular, leisure travellers are value-conscious in spending on transport,
accommodation, food and beverages but tend to be big spenders on retail
26
shopping.59 As they travel mainly in organized group tours, they tend to see the
Netherlands as one stop of many along a tour through Europe (see chapter 3.1.).
During their journey, Chinese travellers know exactly what they want to purchase and
generally prefer spending their money in ‘en vogue’ destinations, such as Paris. That
said, with the progressively more ‘relaxing’ restrictions on Chinese foreign travel and
the increasing experience of Chinese travellers, these preferences may change,
creating opportunities for the Netherlands to absorb a greater proportion of
international travel spending.
Russian international tourism expenditures (Euro billion)
2012
33
2011
24
2010
20
2005
14
2000
10
0
10
20
30
40
Russian tourists spent 7.8 billion euros in the EU in 2011, which was 33% of their
total international tourism expenditures. In the Netherlands in 2011, Russians spent
126 million, which was 0.54% of their total international tourism expenditures.
Top average spending per trip in the Netherlands, 2011
910 €
823 €
793 €
778 €
752 €
659 €
548 €
Russian
Federation
Turkey
India
Israel
Australia
USA
Average
spending per
trip in the
Netherlands
China
59
Shopping benefits about one third of the total expenditure on holidays, showed a survey among Chinese
travellers to various EU member states (Source: CNTA, 2005)
27
Besides being the second biggest spenders from outside of Europe, Russian tourists
also spend the greatest amount of money per trip in the Netherlands with 910 euros.
In comparison, Turkish nationals rank second spending 823 euros per trip and Indian
tourists third, spending 793 euros.
The average length of stay (in average nights spent per arrival) of the top five trip
spending markets are: Russian Federation: 1.98 nights; Turkey: 1.86 nights; India:
2.02; Israel: 2.00 nights; and Australia: 1.98 nights. All of the `greatest per person,
per trip spenders´ stay in the Netherlands above or equal to the average trip duration
of 1.86 nights of non-European source markets.
The top international tourism source markets of per day spending in the Netherlands
(2011) were: Russia: 459 euros; Turkey: 442 euros; Indonesia: 398 euros; Korea:
396 euros; Japan: 395 euros. These are predominantly different source markets than
the greatest spenders per trip. Besides Russia and Turkey, the other top spenders
per trip had per day spending of: India: 392 euros; Israel: 390 euros; and Australia:
380 euros.
Top average spending per day in the Netherland, 2011
459 €
442 €
Russian
Federation
Turkey
398 €
396 €
395 €
392 €
391 €
Indonesia
Korea
Japan
India
USA
Average
spending per
day
28
Box 3: The impact of the diamond
Gassan Diamonds and Coster Diamonds are both family run businesses that are located in
Amsterdam. From a total of 8.7 million arrivals in the Netherlands in 2010, 7.5% of them
visited one of the two enterprises. Especially among international markets with high spending
power, the diamond factories are increasingly known and one of the major attraction points in
Amsterdam. For example, of the 124,300 Chinese tourists visiting the Netherlands in 2010,
64.4% visited at least one of the two businesses, spending on average a total of 250 euros
per person. The amount of 250 euros also corresponds to other emerging markets such as
Russian Federation. Combined, Gassan and Coster´s revenue in 2010 was 130 million
euros. Since about 7% of all visitors actually spend money when visiting the businesses, this
means that the people who bought something spend on average 200 euros per person.
Conclusively, Chinese spend usually about 50 euros more than the average visitor to the
companies.
In a broader perspective, visitors´ expenditures in the diamond businesses are only a part of
the economic benefits for the Netherlands. One example can be the Chinese market.
Assuming that a Chinese tourist stays at least one night in the Netherlands (the usual length
of stay for the market is 1.7), the following additional economic impact in expenditures can be
expected: 1000 euros for the plane ticket (more than 95% of the international visitors who
come to the Netherlands by plane, land at Schiphol), 150 euros for the hotel, around 150
euros for food for two days (assuming three meals per day for 25 euros), 50 euros for further
excursions and about 100 euros for souvenirs. In total (including the 250 euros spent at one
of the diamond businesses), this means 1700 euros spent per Chinese visitor.
Although the example above illustrates just one dimension of direct economic contribution of
travel and tourism, further economic multipliers such as the direct contribution to employment
within the Netherlands should be considered. Facilitating the entry requirements to the
Netherlands for strong markets such as the Chinese market creates economic opportunities
that should not be ignored. In fact, the rising awareness of Chinese citizens of the
Netherlands in combination with more open entry requirements would create, especially for
Amsterdam and the diamond businesses, an opportunity to establish the Netherlands as a
main attraction point within the Schengen Area in the future.
29
4.2. Economic impacts in the European Union
Citizens of countries that are required
to obtain a visa prior to travelling to
the EU currently are the smallest
generators of EU international
10%
tourism revenues. From a total of 272
European
Union
billion euros in tourism revenues in
22%
Visa exempt
2011, the majority (186 billion; 68% of
total) was generated from other EU
68%
Visa required
travellers. Only 10% were generated
by source markets that are required
to obtain a visa before entering the
EU, while an estimated 58.5 billion euros were generated from economies outside of
the EU that are not required to obtain a visa before travelling to the EU.
European Union international
tourism recipts
Source markets of EU tourism revenues show that on average, travellers from
countries that are more easily able to enter EU countries make up a greater
percentage of EU tourism revenues and a greater proportion of their respective
outbound markets (i.e. visa openness positively correlates with tourism revenues).
EU revenue growth (post 2007)
Growth rates of international tourism receipts between 2009 and 2011 suggest that
whereas European citizens are still the greatest source markets of international
tourism60, new market trends are emerging. Average annual growth rates of
international tourism receipts (2009-2011) generated in the EU were 3.4%, from other
EU countries, 8.9% from countries exempt from visa policies, and 23.8% from
countries that required obtaining a visa. As emerging markets that are required to
obtain visas continue to grow, visa facilitation will become increasingly important for
realizing the potential economic benefits.
Both the Chinese and Russian outbound markets are required to obtain visas before
travelling to the Schengen Area. In revenue magnitude, these two source markets
are greater than most other markets currently exempt from visa requirements.
Despite being required to obtain a visa before travelling to most European countries,
the Chinese and Russian markets showed an average annual growth rate of 20.6%
and 32.8% for Europe, generating total 2011 revenues of 3.1 and 7.8 billion euros
respectively.
60
Followed by citizens exempt from visa requirements and citizens required to obtain visas before travelling.
30
Similar to the prospects in terms of arrivals, with projected GDP and disposable
income growth in China and Russia, these two countries are also expected to be
increasingly valuable source markets for international tourism revenues for EU
destinations.
4.3. Economic impacts in the Netherlands
In 2011, the Netherlands
received 10.3 billion euros in
international tourism receipts
6%
(3.8% of the total receipts for
European Union
15%
the EU). Of the 10.3 billion
Visa exempt
euros, 8.2 billion euros (80%)
Visa required
were generated by tourists from
other European Union source
79%
markets. Estimated international
tourism receipts generated by
countries outside the EU, whose citizens are exempt from visa requirements, are 1.4
billion euros. Citizens of countries that are required to obtain a visa before travelling
to the Netherlands generated 500 million euros in tourism revenues in 2011. Similar
to the European Union in general, the Netherlands receives the vast majority of its
international tourism receipts from other EU countries and to a lesser degree,
revenues from nationalities exempt from visa requirements and nationalities required
to obtain a visa.
Netherlands international tourism
receipts, 2011
The Netherlands revenue growth (post - 2007)
Consistent with the European Union total, from 2009 to 2011 the Netherlands
experienced the greatest growth of international tourism receipts from source
markets that are required to obtain a visa; moderate growth of international tourism
receipts from markets exempted from visa requirements; and lesser growth of
receipts from other EU source markets. Average annual growth rates of EU markets,
markets exempt from visa requirements and markets that are required to obtain visas
before travelling were 7%, 14.9% and 18.9%, respectively.
In comparison to the EU, the Netherlands showed relatively greater growth in terms
of international tourism receipts from EU countries and countries that are exempt
from visa requirements, while having relatively less growth from markets that are
required to obtain a visa before travelling.
31
Average annual growth rates of international tourism receipts,
2009-2011 (%)
23,8
18,9
14,9
7,0
8,9
European Union
The Netherlands
3,4
European Union
Visa exempt
Visa required
Nevertheless, when looking at general trends, source markets that are required to
obtain a visa before travelling tend to have higher average annual expenditure
growth, higher trip spending, and higher daily spending. An outlier to these results is
the Chinese market (reasons for this are analyzed later in this chapter).
The difference between the European Union´s and the Netherlands´ revenue
generation trends are, by a considerable portion, due to receipts generated by a few
key source markets, such as US receipts in the Netherlands, generating a significant
market share. Although, from 2009 to 2011, the Chinese and Russian outbound
markets have grown considerably in the Netherlands (8.2% and 26.4%, respectively),
they have grown at a lesser rate, compared to the EU (20.5% and 32.8%,
respectively). This means that the Netherlands has increasing international tourism
receipts from Russia and China but is losing market shares compared to the
European Union as a whole.
32
5. Visa application process
To find practical solutions for current visa facilitation challenges that individual visa
applicants, commercial intermediaries, external service providers, consulates and
embassies face, the following chapter focuses on the main observations made during
the research.
5.1. Information search
The first stage of the visa application process begins usually by identifying
requirements and details of the procedure. Within this process, numerous factors are
crucial for the delivery of high quality services and the satisfaction of the applicants.
Online Search
The availability of online information about international destinations and specific
entry requirements becomes increasingly important as generations become more
Internet adept. Reliable and precise information about the most important aspects of
the destination and visa requirements need to be easily available in order to support
the applicant.
Box 4: Visa requirement information and search engines
Despite the fact that the Ministries of Foreign Affairs usually have the most detailed and
accurate information on visa requirements, only in seven out of 26 cases in the Schengen
Area, the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is positioned as the top rank in Google
search61, among these the Netherlands. In 14 cases, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the
national tourism website was shown in the top three search results. In addition, in 14 cases
was a link to the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs found. Although those differences
occur regularly between the different websites of Member Countries, there is no common
website from the European Commission where the process is clearly explained in multiple
languages and where users could link to the individual country sites.
Certainly, differences in the phrases and keywords that each Schengen country uses for their
official website provide different ranking for the phrase ‘visa requirement’. For example, the
Austrian website from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs prominently uses the German word
‘visum’, which results in their website being ranked relatively low in a Google search when
entering the English phrase ‘visa requirement Austria’. Spain uses the term ‘entry
requirements´ on the Ministry’s website, which is why it was not positioned on the first ranks
in a Google search.
Resources such as Google Trends can inform website management about what search
terms are most commonly searched and can be continuously checked to ensure that website
content is current with what travellers search.
61
Assuming that ‘visa requirement and ‘the destination’s name’ is the first search term in Google search.
33
Ministries of Foreign Affairs and National Tourism Organizations (NTOs) that use the same
words to explain visa requirements optimize the likelihood that travellers will be directed to a
website from a search engine.
Language of Information
The display of visa requirements on both the national tourism and Ministries of
Foreign Affairs websites in different languages, especially those of the most
important emerging source markets, facilitate the visa application process. In 2013,
only four out of all 26 Schengen Member States offered visa information through their
Ministry of Foreign Affairs online in more than five languages (Germany, France,
Sweden, Estonia).62 In comparison, 18 Member States present information through
their NTO websites in more than five languages, which always includes English. Only
two Schengen Member States´ national tourism websites do not present any visa
information. Despite the fact that visa information on the websites of NTOs is
provided by 24 Member States, explanations are usually brief and require applicants
to refer to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or to look for further additional sources.
As the Russian Federation and China are expected to grow as major international
tourism source markets for the Schengen Area, Russian and Chinese are
increasingly important as available languages on websites. In 2013, 15 Member
States presented their national tourism websites in Chinese and Russian. However,
only four Member States have either Chinese or Russian on their Ministry of Foreign
Affairs websites and of these four, Germany is the only country providing both
Chinese and Russian as an option.
Quality of Available Information Online
The reliability of the information is an essential factor that shortens the information
search for applicants and reduces uncertainty and frustration in the visa application
process. In total, 14 out of the 26 Schengen States have links from their NTO
websites (which are usually more visited) to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs websites,
creating a uniform and coordinated representation of the countries´ visa regulations.
About half of the 26 Member States have visa information on their Ministry of Foreign
Affairs websites no older than from 2012.63 The diversity of the information given
either on the NTO or Ministry of Foreign Affairs websites varies within the Schengen
Area. The majority of the 26 States show clear and updated visa information on the
websites of the responsible ministries. The Netherlands is one example that has
created clear, accurate and an understandable overview of visa related information
on their Ministry of Foreign Affairs website.
62
63
These are results from a comparison of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs´ websites across the Schengen Area.
Or another official Ministry responsible for the Schengen visa.
34
Additional External Sources
Being able to find information and to organize the visa for the Netherlands via an
external service provider presents an attractive alternative for many applicants. Not
only is the average wait time shortened in most cases when applying via an external
service provider, but the neutral party can effectively represent the interest that the
applicant receives the visa.
There are several Schengen Member States that have or are in the process of
outsourcing their visa services, at least in certain markets (such as the Netherlands
in China, for example). China and the Russian Federation as key emerging outbound
travel markets have become the focus of most outsourcing activities. Outsourcing the
visa application procedure not only presents an advantage for the traveller, but also
offers the Schengen Member States the opportunity to be more present in the source
market and use the externally run visa service centers (VSCs) for additional national
marketing activities.
5.2. Application
Personal Appearance
The compulsory personal interview in order to attain a Schengen visa presents
considerable challenges for many applicants. For countries with large territories, such
as China and the Russian Federation, individual travellers not living in cities with
consulates are required to make additional trips to embassies just to carry out the
personal interviews. The resulting additional costs and time are significant and often
act an impediment even to apply. When surveying consulate staff in 2013, the
European Commission found that 61% of all consulate employees interviewed
indicated that applicants must appear in person. The majority of respondents
reported that they also have agreements in place, allowing third parties to lodge an
application.64
Box 5: The journey before the journey
For the research, a person’s journey was described using a real applicant’s experience:
Anna, a middle aged Russian woman has been travelling on a yearly basis from Wjasma
(Russian Federation) to Berlin (Germany) for the past twenty years because she visits her
friend Hans. In order to enter the Schengen Area, she is required to obtain a Schengen C
visa. When applying, she has to travel to the German consulate in Moscow twice - once to
apply in person, and again to pick up the approved visa. Just like any other applicant, she
64
industry and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area, p. 26.
35
does not have the option to apply at a consulate of a different Schengen Member State or to
go to a local authority for the interview.
Consequently, every year that she makes a trip to Germany, she makes three trips in total.
Wjasma is located 250 km away from Moscow, which is in total 4 hours commuting by train.
Each return trip to Moscow takes a day. Despite the fact of the additional time and costs
involved for the trips to the German embassy, Anna appreciates the changes to the visa
application process. Two years ago, it was not possible to obtain an appointment with the
German consulate; she was never sure how long she would have to wait for an application
interview. Also, she never knew how long it would take to process her visa. Now, Anna can
make an appointment with the German consulate ahead of time and knows that she will be
able to apply for a visa on the day that she travels to Moscow. She also knows that her
application will be processed within 10 to 14 days.
Anna faces the same challenges as all the other travellers that want to come to the
Schengen Area. In 2011, for example, 5.3 million Russian citizens filed visa applications for
the Schengen Area. In the same year 1.1 million Chinese applied for applications. In large
countries (in population and geographic space), where international tourism is increasingly
affordable for the general population, applying for a Schengen visa takes days of planning,
travelling, and money. A growing number of Chinese international travellers are from
secondary cities, where there are usually not yet foreign consulates. It is not uncommon to
have to fly to Beijing, stay the night, and return the next day after filing an application at a
foreign consulate. As the popularity of international tourism continues to grow, so do the total
costs of visa requirements.
Supporting Documents
The provision of documentation during the visa application process can be a barrier
for potential applicants. From an employed Chinese citizen for example, a total of six
supporting documents are generally asked for the Schengen visa application; each of
them containing detailed information about the applicant.65 For each document
required, third party institutions have to be contacted; hence, more than five external
bodies are involved in the process, all of them needing certain time to issue the
specific paper and probably also asking for a certain fee for the documents. The
additional expense and time related challenges that derive from these application
requirements force applicants to plan well in advance and to expect further costs for
the application documents in addition to the application fee of 60 euros.
As also identified by the European Commission is a strong need to harmonize the
number of requested documents and to interpret consistently these requirements
across the Schengen Member States.
65
Also depending on further components such as e.g. the age, employment and marriage status of the applicant.
36
5.3. Processing time
Wait Time
Wait time for applicants differs greatly between Member States of the Schengen
Area. While the official processing time of a Schengen Visa is set at a maximum of
15 work days, the European Commission found that in the majority of cases, a
decision is made within seven working days of the consulate receiving an admissible
application.66 While Finland processes applications within two days, the Netherlands
currently still falls into the category of Member States that take up to two or three
weeks for processing applications. In 2011 and 2012, travel agents surveyed by the
European Commission indicated that an average of 8% of all customers in both years
had to cancel because their Schengen visa was not granted in time.67
Peaks and Seasonality
It is not only external seasonal factors, such as the increased applications of Chinese
tourists before the Golden Weeks in China, that present additional constraint for
consulate staff. Internal factors, such as staffing during these peak seasons are
challenging. As a consequence, visa applications that are considered more
important, such student visas, are prioritized over short term visas for tourism
purposes. According to the European Commission report, one-third of all consulates
have no planning in place for peak seasons. From a tourism point of view, there is a
strong need to address this issue.68
66
industry and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area; p. 24.
67
68
37
6. Facilitation opportunities
The analysis in this report confirms the enormous potential that lies within the current
framework of the Schengen visa system. Although the Schengen structure can only
be altered by the EU, procedural steps initiated individually by each Member State
can improve the application procedures, creating preferences for the destination.
The respondents of the survey undertaken by the European Commission showed
that although almost half of the consulate respondents see no possibility for
simplification, the other half does see room for improvements especially in the list of
supporting documents and the requirements to meet in person at the consulate.69
The following recommendations are intended to compliment and extend the
recommendations made already by the European Commission.
From this research, the following themes for recommendations emerged:





Improve delivery of information
Facilitate the process to obtain a visa
Adjust the characteristics of the application to the needs of the travellers
Differentiate treatment to facilitate tourist travel
Find alternatives for traditional paper visas
Opportunity 1: Improve the delivery of information
A. Mainstreaming visa information among all Member States
The Schengen Area is widely perceived as one destination among international
tourists. However, information about the Schengen visa application often has to be
retrieved through several websites of different Member States or even external
service providers. To minimize the time required to gather information and to avoid
confusion, mainstreamed visa information on one common website provided by the
European Commission explaining clearly and in different languages the application
process while linking to the individual Member States would create a uniform image
of the Treaty Area, while enhancing synergies and cost effectiveness.
69
industry and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area, p.39.
38
B. Establishment of clear linkages between the website of the NTOs and Ministries of
Foreign Affairs website
Well established cross-links between the national tourism website and the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs website that are clear and visible to travellers reduce time, effort and
increase information reliability, trust and unity.
C. Increasing different language options
Whereas presenting certain information about the visa requirements on the NTO
website is helpful for potential travellers, the websites of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs usually contain more detailed information. However, in many cases in the
Schengen Area, Member States offer a greater number of languages on their NTO
website and less on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Especially for emerging
tourism markets that are not yet as experienced as more mature markets, finding
information in their mother tongue is crucial and ensures that all relevant documents
and requirements are presented correctly and completely from the beginning of the
application process.
D. Improving customer service and communication
Clear communication of visa application requirements, processes and timelines will
help ensure that potential travellers are not unnecessarily deterred. Information
online should therefore be up to date, readily available and reliable. This is also
important for the travel trade.
Opportunity 2: Facilitate the process to obtain a visa
A. Finding alternatives for the personal interview
In-person interviews can place a large cost burden on potential applicants, especially
when travel is involved to reach the embassy or consulate. Although the prevailing
opinion among embassy staff is that personal encounters with applicants allow
quicker and more thorough decision making processes, implementing technological
alternatives could help to evaluate applicants, eliminate additional difficulties for
travellers and lift the pressure and work load of embassy staff. Initiatives such as the
US pilot programme testing the use of secure, remote video conferencing technology
to conduct interviews with those applying for tourist or business visa to the US, could
be one such alternative.70
70
See also: http://www.eturbonews.com/36529/usa-visa-application-interview-electronic-video-conference.
39
B. Abolishing the necessity to apply at the applicable consulate
As an alternative to the current requirement of applying at the consulate of the main
destination within Schengen, the creation of Schengen Consulates as endorsed in
the study of the European Commission can be an extended solution, allowing for
more cost efficient and neutral assessment of the requisites, harmonizing procedures
and criteria. This could significantly ease the application process making use of
current infrastructure. It could also have the positive effect of reducing the existing
differences between the number of visa applications and approval rates among the
Member States.
C. Increasing visa processing capacity
One of the greatest deterrents to potential travellers is long and uncertain wait times.
By investing in the capacity to process more visas, the Netherlands could remove this
significant perceived obstacle to travellers. Many of the opportunities presented in
this report can increase a country´s capacity to process a visa application. Greater
capacities can be attained by opening visa processing centers and additional
consulate services or by increasing the amount of flexible staff that can be positioned
in different workplaces, depending on the demand. By doing so, the necessary
flexibility and possible cost savings can be created and allow consulate services to
concentrate on other pressing issues. Certainly, for cases in which the establishment
of visa processing centers through external service providers are limited due to the
political environment, this option remains challenging for Member States and requires
a common approach that opens dialogues between the parties.
D. Leveraging technology and other support measures to increase efficiency and
speed of visa issuance and enhance security
Besides the options presented above, the new electronic visa information system
(VIS), which will be used in all EU consulates around the world by 2014, is expected
to improve speed of visa processing and issuance for returning travellers to the
Schengen Area.71 Further examples that increase the speed of the application
process are the wider implementation of online submission of applications, the
introduction of fast track systems linked to higher fees (justified by the measure and
covering the costs), as well as the usage of accredited travel agents or other
institutional agreements.72 Travellers would not necessarily see the increase of costs
but the reduction of opportunity costs needed to obtain a visa. Especially in peak
seasons and for trips on short notice, these options present valuable opportunities.
71
72
See also: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-information-system/
See also recommendations 1 and 2 of the European Commission.
40
Opportunity 3: Adjust the characteristics of the application process to the
needs of the travellers
A. Simplifying and streamlining supporting documents
Some required documentation for visas can be costly or time consuming, if not
impossible to obtain. Through intelligent harmonization and standardization of forms,
misunderstanding and frustration for both parties can be minimized. Especially where
answers are provided in a closed format i.e. multiple choice, language barriers and
inefficiencies can be reduced allowing applicants to see the information in his local
language while management of the document could be handled automatically in a
different language.73
B. Eliminating risks for the traveller due to the required documents
Closely related to the preceding facilitation opportunity is the elimination of required
documents that force aspirants to book the accommodation for the whole duration of
the intended stay before applying for a visa. The costs involved while not knowing if
the trip is possible creates undesired risks for potential travellers that can discourage
them from a possible journey to the Schengen Area.
Opportunity 4: Differentiate treatment to facilitate tourist travel
A. Easing requirements for specific traveller segments
Differentiation between source markets as well as establishing trusted traveller
profiles for different traveller groups within the same market could be effective
options in expanding visa facilitation measures. Not only is the Orange Carpet
treatment one example of facilitated entry opportunities, countries that have
implemented a visa waiver scheme mainly directed to cruise passengers are
examples of such facilitation measures. In addition, guaranties/certificates distributed
by, for example tour operators, stating that stipulated requirements are met which
otherwise would be verified in detail by the consulate (as recommended by the
European Commission74), can allow the Netherlands for faster application
procedures. These can be valid for specific travel segments or in a more generic
way.
73
Open questions are questions which cause freely formulated answers that can impede such an efficient
management of documents. Thus, they should be used on separate exceptional documents in standardized
languages only of applicants reply to standard form would not be possible.
74
See recommendation 5 of the European Commission.
41
B. Adjusting the usage and regulations regarding multiple entry visas (MEV)
Currently, only certain Member States issue multiple entry visas for the Schengen
Area. The study of the European Commission showed, that under the current visa
regime, differences in the share of C visas and MEVs granted exist within the Treaty
Area.75 In addition, the validity of the Schengen visa can currently not be changed
according to the needs of the travellers. By increasing the flexibility of multiple entry
visa conditions, more personalized visas can be granted, matching more effectually
the purpose of the trip and creating increased visitor satisfaction. To reach this goal,
the European Commission has correctly recommended the wider use, the increased
validity, and the more flexible conditions of the multiple entry Schengen visa. 76
Opportunity 5: Find alternatives for traditional paper visa
A. Institution of eVisa programmes
A great opportunity, and by far the most cited during the interviews for this report, is
facilitating travel through eVisas. Unlike traditional visas, there is no label or stamp
needed in the passport or a physical presence required to obtain them. The
European Commission has proposed a potential eVisa system for the Schengen
Area that could ease significantly the entry procedure. Though globally still not widely
used, UNWTO strongly endorses this position and recommends using eVisa systems
wherever a traditional visa is still required.
B. Institution of visa on arrival programmes
Globally, the most common facilitation measure is visa on arrival. Out of all
improvements introduced between 2010 and 2013, 60% were visa on arrival regimes.
Though still an exception for the Schengen Treaty Area, visa on arrival could be of
interest to the Netherlands. A well designed approach to cruises, business fairs, and
short term stays for shopping for those using Schipol Airport as a hub could be
considered.
The general requirements for visa on arrival include a valid passport for the upcoming
six months, a round-trip airplane ticket, and certain fees. Typically, this is available
only to certain countries. For example, Indonesia offers visa on arrival to 64 countries
while India offers the programme to eleven countries. The issuance of visas on arrival
decreases the costs of obtaining a visa for travellers and these programmes are
typically less costly than maintaining programmes outside the country for the issuing
government, however still allows for control over who enters the country and for how
75
industry and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area, p.40.
76
See recommendation 7,8,9 and 10 of the European Commission.
42
long. At this moment, there is no such programme instituted in the Schengen Area for
certain source markets or traveller groups.
C. Institution of visa waiver programmes
Finally the institution of a visa waiver programme focused on selected traveller
markets that are deemed to be low risk can further facilitate travel. Different form the
option of creating specific traveller profiles for one market, visa waiver programmes
can eliminate the necessity of a visa for entire markets. With fast changing traveller
markets around the globe, regular (annual) reviews of possible visa waiver
extensions for additional markets are desirable. The last visa waiver decisions made
by the European Commission were in 2008; more are expected to come in the near
future.
43

Visa Facilitation: The Netherlands

Transcription

Similar documents

Your tour destination requires a visa for entry

LGFCU Visa® Credit Card - Local Government Federal Credit Union

Five Important Things You Should Know About Unembossed Visa

Exchange Report

AU PAIR USA - Au Pair Experience

2nd Wind Exercise Equipment

July 2016

Ciné-‐Télé-‐Revue (movie and TV magazine

Make an APCU VISA Your Holiday Companion and Earn Double